Sunday, March 4, 2012

Apparently hypocrisy is ketogenic or something like that, because it is coursing through the veins of the low carb community these days. You see, hidden beneath the bellyaching title and opening of the blog post, What’s With The Antagonism About Low-Carb From The Paleo Community Lately?, lay another one of Jimmy's "data dump" posts having the LC "experts" weigh in on the issue of low carb and thyroid function. As yet another fairly well known low carber jumps the Carnival ship, things are getting more and more desperate in LLVLClue-landia.

Look, for years we've been told that so what if Gary Taubes isn't 100% correct, at least he's more correct than Ornish and look at how many people have lost a zillion pounds going low carb. When the science fails to support the more outlandish claims made by Dr. Eades, we're always admonished that at least he's drawing on all of those clinical experiences with all of his patients he's treated all these years. Ditto Andreas Eenfeldt, William Davis, Mary Vernon, Eric Westman, and now I suppose we have to add some new names to the list like Cate Shanahan and Jack Kruse. If I've left anyone out I do apologize. But you see, these folks rely heavily on their anonymous patients' results to support their theses, and to some extent you have to give them that. While I'm sympathetic to the "what do a bunch of thin scientist types with Hahvahd educations know anyway" gripe, at some point, all of these anecdotes need be backed up with some degree of accountability. For all the brew ha ha over my former anonymity, the comments sections of low carb blogs are filled with success stories of the unknown who won't even post pictures of themselves. I'm all for anyone remaining anonymous for their own reasons, but you have to be consistent. Because what we see time and again, is that low carb weight loss "success stories" often fall far short of the bar these same people raise for others to clear if they achieved their success by other means.

Somehow, if you don't worship at the altar of Taubes, you are not allowed your own anecdotal experience. If you feel like crap and have drawn out LC flu, there's something you're doing wrong (FWIW, I never experienced this). There's an excuse for everything, including that somehow if you can't reach a reasonable goal, it wasn't reasonable to begin with or your metabolism is hopelessly farkled from carb-induced mitochondrial mahem. For my own experiences, I plateaued out at too high a weight for me. It's amusing to read my critics, because back in the day of participating on Jimmy's forum I was told left and right that I should ignore the scale because it was how I felt and looked that mattered. I've never pretended to be "skinny", but I'm definitely a BMI outlier as I do not know anyone else who can wear size 10 Lee jeans at 200 lbs. That is what it is, but now folks are calling me fat. So be it ... I suppose we'll see what the reaction is when folks meet me in person at AHS in August. But the hypocrisy of folks' opinions of what I write about here vis a vis the science is always amusing. As if my weight or anyones has anything to do with how insulin really works in the human body. But I digress ....

In any case, I have low carbed three times in my life and my experiences the first two times were that the rebound was lightyears worse than it had ever been for this perennial yo-yo dieter. I also noticed that long stints on LC seemed to tank my metabolic rate. Back in 2009 I tracked calories for a while to see what was going on, and while I seemingly could go up to around 1800/day for a bit, I didn't lose unless I went under 1200/day. That is what it is. But eh ... who am I, right? There's all these anonymous ladies out there eating 2000 cal/day, even 3000 cal/day and effortlessly maintaining lying around on their size 2 butts all day long. Fine if true, but that applies to me just how exactly?

And so now we get around to Cheeseslave's reasons for ditching low carb ( “Why I Ditched Low-Carb”), notably some thyroid issues. I've noticed a huge number of hypothyroids populating LC forums. I don't know if this is because LC attracts them, or it exacerbates things, but having to up meds on low carb is not at all an uncommon report on such venues. I suppose these folks are lying or something despite being die hard low carbers? Jimmy next cites Chris Kresser:

Kresser noted that many low-carb Paleo dieters in his practice are “suffering from the classic hypothyroid symptoms.” And by adding carbohydrates back into their diet again they seem to anecdotally get better. He concluded that “the low-carb diet contributing to hypothyroid and increasing carbohydrate intake improving thyroid function is definitely real.”

So ... Kresser sees this in his practice, and what are we to conclude? Kresser is just flinging anecdotes around. This isn't anything like Mary Vernon's tall tales of amazing successes. No, now folks, the low carbers are out for blood in terms of cold hard evidence. Forget that there is no evidence to support the vast majority of claims made by Jimmy Moore's podcast guests .... now we need the evidence!! To be fair, I've looked into the peer review literature on this and not found much of anything concrete, but there are enough reports by people who have nothing to gain by sharing their experiences to perk my former bunny ears.

So Jimmy goes to the "experts" to get to the bottom of this. Dr. Cate Shanahan is first up. Sorry, but the more I read from this lady, the less I can take seriously anything she says. I was saddened to learn that it was at Paul Jaminet's invitation that she'll be sitting on the panel passing judgment on the beleaguered starch molecule at AHS12. According to Dr. Cate, we all just need to ease into LC more slowly. Based on what evidence I ask? Dr. Cate's T.R.I.M. program is nothing more than a CRD in LC disguise. Next up we have the new leader of the Insurgency, Peter Attia never practiced as an MD past residency. Now he wants to see the scientific proof! Where's the proof we need a war on insulin first?! How about the scientific proof that eating carbs causes insulin resistance ... or obesity for that matter. I just love how all of a sudden these folks get keen on wanting 100% proof when they're out there touting LC as the healthiest diet ever imagined. Ditto Dr. Eenfeldt -- proof dammit, we want proof!! The list goes on, and on. Look ... I'm very interested in seeing studies that demonstrate this, but I also wonder just when personal experiences have been rendered moot by these hucksters. Are we not bombarded mercilessly with their success stories and tales of amazing health turnarounds? If someone does not experience the parting of the seas and all that, is there experience not worth mentioning? Apparently not. We don't really want to know of any potential downsides or that this way of eating might not be optimal or even workable for many people. I gotta say that there's definitely something that thins the skins of low carbers.

We learn that Feinman isn't interested in eating more carbs. Fine, it's working so wonderfully for you. Durianrider laughs off his critics while Jimmy has to censor and ban his. Jackie Eberstein -- who worked for the late, great Dr. Atkins -- has only seen patients get better. Perhaps that's because, as with all diets, early on they do, and those who don't never come back. At least Ben Greenfield cites some studies, but just when you think you might get a science backed argument, enter stage left Nora Gedgaudas. She has bushy eyebrows so there's that! Denver's diet doctor places the blame on low carbers being fatter to begin with so that paleo types don't see improvements. Does that tell you something folks? How about if you get to near-normal body weight perhaps it's no longer a good idea to remain in starvation metabolism? Maybe?? Next up is "Everyone's a diabetic" Rosedale. When the man can justify his leptin spiking nonsense, he'll have a credible leg to stand on. Not likely. But Rosedale actually prides his VLC diet for reducing thyroid activity and lowering body temperature. So he's making the case, but like his sometimes buddy Leptin Man, he's saying it's a desired outcome. Freezing your ass off is a good thing folks!! From Dr. Judy Tsafir we get:

I don’t really get it. It seems very clear to me that most peoples’ health is vastly improved by a moderately low to very low carb diet. I am of the mind set that the specific source of the carbs matters. For people who have been formerly obese, their metabolism is often significantly damaged, and they could never eat upwards of 300g of carbs a day without gaining weight and having a recurrence of metabolic syndrome.

Based on what studies? What evidence. Science!! Oh wait ... low carb doctors don't need no stinkin' science. Robb Wolf thinks folks are just trying to muddy the waters here. Yeah, please do tell us about your testosterone levels Robb. I don't get Dr. BG at all as she experienced some bad stuff on VLC yet that doesn't mean everyone should eat carbs willy nilly. Sheez ... who says that? Long before I was kicked off of Jimmy's forum I was tiring of folks looking for assistance with their less than stellar experiences eating LC for the long term when the only advice was keep doing more of what's not working for you. The oddest thing of all is that Atkins himself cautioned about the thyroid function -- perhaps that's why induction was really intended to be only two weeks? At least we get some voice of reason from Dr. Emily Deans there ... no doubt ignored and lost in the swamp of long winded low carbers, and I'm liking this Diane Sanfilippo more and more since first hearing her at Paleo Summit. Realistic, practical, non-dogmatic. Low carb needs more like her! Especially that common sense -- if it's not working for you, try something different!

Uggh ... and then we get to Adam Kosloff. Adam is a nice guy (EDIT 2013: No he's actually one of the slimiest jerks around) who I've had some email exchanges with after he sent me his Beyond Caloriegate ebook. I don't get the point of that book -- Spoiler! You don't ever learn what's in the black box! -- and more importantly I don't get his purpose in all of this. He doesn't have the background, his low carb status is ??, and he seems more to be cheerleading a movement than anything. Between the Kumbaya! chants, he pretty much writes off anyone who believes in basic laws of nature and that calories count. Sigh. Adam, we're long past the point of folks making stuff up. Atkins started it all with his version of energy balance in 1972 -- something folks like to forget but that's what he said in his original book -- you pee out inordinate amounts of calories in ketosis. That was it. Period. Of course this never stood the test of time so his heirs have woven ever more "sciencey" and elaborate theories, TWICHOO being the most popular, but so much of it is hooey. Adam is worrying about the Titanic going down and folks rearranging the deck chairs. I say jump into the nearest lifeboat -- which "going paleo" seems to be for many low carbers -- unless you think you can undo the damage of the iceberg that is scientific reality!

Jimmy ends his post saying "your comments are welcomed and encouraged". That is, if you haven't been banned. Oh ... and don't share anything that can be construed as a negative experience on low carb. That's just anecdotal y'know y'all baybeeee.

(I haven't vetted that web page, by the way. If you know it's a hoax or joke, set me straight) ______________Morotai December 18, 1974 - Private Nakamura TeruoRumors of Japanese soldiers doggedly hiding out on the island had prompted Japanese officials to coax the loyal troops out from the mountainous interior by playing the wartime national anthem by loudspeaker.

Private Nakamura Teruo was spotted by a pilot of the Indonesian Air Force in an isolated clearing on Morotai around September 1974, but it took two months for the rumour to reach the Japanese embassy in Jakarta Nakamura, who spent more than twenty years in complete isolation, did not know the war was over,

"I'm definitely a BMI outlier as I do not know anyone else who can wear size 10 Lee jeans at 200 lbs." Vanity sizing has exactly one purpose and the name is a good hint. I have size 4 jeans that are bigger than size 8 jeans.

"Morotai December 18, 1974 - Private Nakamura TeruoRumors of Japanese soldiers doggedly hiding out on the island had prompted Japanese officials to coax the loyal troops out from the mountainous interior by playing the wartime national anthem by loudspeaker."

He only has to hold out for about 20 more years. Can he do it?

He has lots of helpers to tell him the war is still ongoing it seems, unlike the real Nakamura.

Evelyn,When speaking about your weight and size, you forget to take into the account the amount of fat locked together in the loose skin which is left after your substantial weight-loss. I have a feeling you will take care about it some day, even though it is not cheep and could be an invasive sort of surgery. I think the younger you at the time of surgery, the better the recovery. It looks like you are weight stable for a while.

I just want to add my inside about low thyroid and LC. Somehow I thought about LCarbing as a very extreme and difficult diet to follow before I attempted it, sort of the last resort diet. Probably because I already had my routine how to loose weight and it was more convenient to do something familiar. I was diagnosed with under-active thyroid 10 years before I tried LC, and being hypothyroidal makes a weight-loss even more challenging. So, by 45 my normal routine of loosing weight didn't do much for me any longer, and the last resort diet was here to try. I think I avoided complications many people complain about mostly because my weight-loss was very slowly and on a small scale. Also, my case of Hypothyroidism is the autoimmune in origin, all other allergies got remarkably better on LC (like no more asthma), so should the Hashimodo condition, at least I didn't have to change my prescription to the stronger one last 7 years.

I keep hearing about vanity sizing, and I've tried to find some hard evidence one way or the other as to whether this is a real phenomenon or not. I too have experienced the wide variation in jeans sizing, and I think it may be more just a difference in clothing manufacturing rather than something deliberate. I found this interesting blog by a person that actually works in the clothing manufacturing industry. As far as I can tell she just got fed up with hearing about vanity sizing and decided to write a blog about it. I don't see her selling supplements or anything. :) I thought it was interesting, anyway. http://www.vanitysizing.com/

I think vanity sizing smacks of conspiracy and I have a hard time buying it. But even if you believe in vanity sizing, Kathleen Fasanella has another blog about production pattern design (http://www.fashion-incubator.com) that is quite interesting. Sizing clothing seems to be more difficult than most people realize. Based on what I've read, I think what we're seeing in America is a moving average. People are getting not only wider, but taller. Older sizing just doesn't work for our current size distribution. I guess you could call it "vanity sizing", but it's really just sizing being adjusted to make clothing practical for the majority of the population. This link explains it better than I can. http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/the_myth_of_vanity_sizing/Kathleen Fasanella's job is production pattern making, and she seems like a fairly reliable source for this kind of info.

Hey ladies, no doubt some vanity sizing is real, but I'd say it's about a size at most for a woman proportioned the same way. Still, I think the waists are considerably larger now, and the "fits below the waist" style is way more forgiving as are stretch jeans. A couple of summers ago I unearthed some pants I had worn when I was a good 30 lbs and probably 40 lbs lighter before. They fit differently, but fit nonetheless. I have had substantial shift of weight to my upper body. I will not ever fit my wedding dress again as my boobs did not deflate at all with this last round of weight loss.

My only reason for citing the size is that I shop in the regular sections of regular stores and for whatever reason, a wide range of size 10 pants fit me. Nobody I see shopping next to me, sometimes selecting larger sizes, looks like they weigh 200 lbs. I have some dresses from the 80's that are smaller sizes but were larger b/c those were the days of the A-line skirts. I couldn't have worn the dresses I do today back then at any size. The tops would have been tents before the thighs fit in.

Y'know, I used to believe that moreso than I do now. If I do get anything cosmetic, it will be to fix the "batwings" that bother me most. But otherwise I think I'm firmly in that area that frank r spoke of here recently. I could do some things to lose more weight. I just pretty much enjoy how I look and feel now so I'm far more interested in metabolic health than vanity. I do want to drop some more weight to relieve the stress on my knees, but it's just not a major priority as we've discussed. I take zero meds, have zero health problems other than knees I wrecked in my youth, and I am freakishly strong which matters most to me as I age. I want to be self sufficient as long as I can be. I have no desires to be a fatty nematode. My experience is such that I stopped losing weight on LC eating rather little. Even IF took off 10 lbs initially then no mas. I firmly believe that in maintenance my current diet is healthier. YMMV.

@MM "Kathleen Fasanella's job is production pattern making, and she seems like a fairly reliable source for this kind of info" Kathleen's blog is great & she's the real deal. I would trust her totally on this.

Not that it's hard to find better weight loss successes that Jimmy Moore's that didn't use low carb, but here's a man with triple digit weight loss - of 290 lbs - he lost about Jimmy Moore's entire current weight!

Bryan Ganey did it by eating carbohydrates, and lots of them.I guess his broken metabolism somehow started working!

I thought I should maybe define vanity sizing. What most people seem to mean by that is that clothing manufacturers are deliberately putting smaller numbers on larger items in order to make people feel good about themselves so they will buy more. Hence the "vanity" in vanity sizing. I do think sizes are changing, but I don't think it's any conspiracy by the industry to hoodwink people into buying more by stroking their egos.

When I was in my 20's, better slacks meant Liz Claiborne and Calvin Klein. These "designer" items did run bigger ... much IMO ... than Levis which, at the time, had those embarrassing waist size tags on them. There was also the transition from juniors sizing that I think some are maybe forgetting? Go into the Jrs department and pick a pair of size 5 jeans, then go to the Misses department and pick a pair of size 4 jeans. I can almost guarantee the 4's will be bigger than the 5's. When I was shopping in plus stores, I wandered once into a Torrid which is a Jr's plus. At the time I was scavenging on the low end of the Avenue 14/16's but would be lucky to fit the largest sizes at Torrid.

Maybe all us American women are just too dang fat these days. I remember going to Sears once for jeans and finding only 14's after 14's after more 14's. There were a few 10's and I didn't even see more than a few pairs of single digits mixed in. So what does this mean? That I'm "normal" and all these other women are buying up the 10's out from under me, or that they stock what they sell and I'm actually kinda small in some circles. I don't know and I don't care. I know that in person I do not look like I weigh what I do. There's just no way guys react to me the way they do if it were true.

"We learn that Feinman isn't interested in eating more carbs. Fine, it's working so wonderfully for you. Durianrider laughs off his critics while Jimmy has to censor and ban his."Just an FYI: As a former fruitarian that used to frequent Durianrider's website regularly, I can tell you from personal experience that he censors and bans members just as much if not moreso than Jimmy. If you're not drinking the kool-aid, you're walking on egg shells.

I didn't mean to say, you have to do something. Actually, the main thing I wanted to communicate in my comment was that you may be having some fat locked in skin-folds left after a weight-loss.You can't loose it in non-surgical way even when your total weight is getting more low , but it is still a part of the 200 lb number, and it does not not affect your pants size.It could be risky for a well-being to go through an invasive surgery when you feel very well already. I remember how I got a worsening in migraines because of anesthesia after I had a small foot surgery.

the usual explanation of trying to make customers feel better may or may not hold water, I am very skeptical of that.

at the same time I cannot see any practical consideration that trumps the practical consideration of being able to buy pants, say online, if you know your measurements, without having to go through a table matching "size" to "size".

yes, some industries may be more prone to putting internal practicalities ahead of customer practicalities, but this piques/tweaks my skepticism too.

I didn't take it in a bad way :) There is some fat I do believe cannot be gotten rid of w/o surgery. I'm sort of at that tipping point with that. No insurance company would approve it in a million years, and thus I'm left with the reality of good old capitalism. As it should be.

No, I don't usually read JAMA, I was looking for something specific and found it by accident. Note one of the author's names: George Bray, a Taubes nemesis. Back when I was a Taubes acolyte Bray was on my enemies list. Now he's a hero.

But I digress. I found these two data points interesting:

"Body fat increased similarly in all 3 protein diet groups and represented 50% to more than 90% of the excess stored calories."

BUT

"Among persons living in a controlled setting, calories alone account for the increase in fat; protein affected energy expenditure and storage of lean body mass, but not body fat storage."

My interpretation: low-carb diet work, when they work, because they create a calorie deficit. However - low-carb diets (IF they are high protein diets) may provide an extra boost because they affect storage of lean body mass. I say "extra boost" rather than "metabolic advantage", because of all the bad connotations of the latter phrase.

How does that sound to the people here? Make sense?

This study just might get me back to LCing for a week or two, to see what develops. That's low-carb, not 'no carb" and only for a short period of time.

Well, in socialism reality you probably would not have an option of a cosmetic or a body correction surgery, healthcare was for free on one hand, but many things were just out of reach for ordinary citizens, and money wouldn't be a solution. I remember how my best friend needed MRI for her doter and we, her friends, were raking our friends and their friends for necessary connections until the access chain was build. Almost like a chain for a kidney transplants here. As a benefit we had a very tight human relationships. So, when only money is a problem, like it is in a capitalistic reality, it may be not a bad thing. It is just a general ranting comment, nothing more.

From my hubby's side I have a deep appreciation for what socialism is like and I'm not complaining. OTOH, with good old American cash my father in law was able to get like 20K dental work done on a recent visit for like 2K. When one looks at the bills for a single visit to the ER, a couple of tests and no admission vs. the cost of a full body lift with a top level surgeon, I don't see how anyone can not appreciate market forces. For me, it's a matter of what else the money might be better spent on. I'd rather laze my less perfect bod on the beach several times a year ;)

Well, some people stall their weight-loss by overeating protein, you will never know until you try your own interpretation of different protein ratios. Research results often give just an idea what to try next, but not more.

I spent most of 2009-2010 experimenting. In the summer of 2010 I worked my butt off and ate whatever the heck I wanted and got smaller (but didn't lose weight). I dubbed that my "summer of serenity" because I didn't think about my weight much at all and I didn't worry over regaining, something that I spent much of 2009 in silent fear of. I do eat quite a bit of protein-- over 100g most days -- and have actually toyed with the idea of cutting it back significantly to lose lean body mass. My body does not want to give that up so easily apparently, which is a good thing in most cases, but perhaps not in mine.

I'll take your word on that. I don't really have much need to read his blog and such so if it's all rah rah fruities, and he censors folks that 30 bananas a day doesn't work for, eh? Jimmy's reach is far wider and his influence is far more insidious.

Oops, somehow my reply to Diana went here , but I hope it is fine and didn't create too much of misunderstanding. Recently I started to feel a little bit differently about extra flesh because I am getting farther from 50, I believe the lean tissue is better to be preserved when we approach the age when it would be more difficult to build. I even don't want to loose more fat from my face and butt now even though most of my life it was what I wanted. My face got much thinner during last year, but still no wrinkles so far. Also, the very middle of mine middle-section(like a vertical line) looks like a deflated balloon now. Probably, I would look worse not better at BMI 25 ( now it is 27). When we age often thinness doesn't mean beauty.

There's no doubt you could feed a small country on DRs ego alone but his results are what grants that audacity where JM falls short. Anyone getting into a spat with DR specifically over whether or not fruit and sugar makes you fat will walk away having severely injured their knuckles on his protruding cheek bones.

speaking of hypothyroid... it's a common slam against MDs, often but not always justified, that they prescribe some treatment and then later prescribe some drug to counter the side effects. Similarly, back in Paleo-land, they've pushed VLC and so then hear from lots of people with insufficient stomach acid and so they prescribe hydrochloric acid supplements.

I'd see Bray more as the counter to Eades' protein power. Bray also had a nice video presentation of the study there on JAMA (and youtube). Btw, that study was discussed over at Dr Andro's. Carbs as muscle sparing came up.

This is one thing I got so tired of on Jimmy's forum. Someone would suggest supplement A and someone else would report ill effects. Then you'd get a litany of other supplements you should take with it to avoid those. I just couldn't believe it. Several people reported getting migraines with melatonin supplementation. I say don't take melatonin, right? But these people were hounded with suggestions that they take other stuff with it .... like it was so important that they just had to find a way to take their melatonin. I foolishly jumped on the VitD wagon at one point -- hey even I lose my sanity from time to time -- adn I was taking 5000 IU/day. I also had the first ever officially high blood pressure reading at the doctors' office and when I would roll over too fast lying down I got a really weird dizzy feeling. Not lightheaded, but almost like those floaties in your eyes but without the floaties. I stopped the D and this went away. Of course to share this negative effect was not a good thing because it might scare folks. Well gee ... how many other people does this possibly happen to that might just benefit from hearing my anecdote?

Both mum & I take 5,000iu/day of Vitamin D3. Mum has had zero medical problems in the last 12 months (she started taking D3 in March 2011) and I haven't had any medical problems either. In fact, I have been able to discontinue all of my medications bar the thyroxine & testosterone gel for hypopituitarism.

5,000iu/day is 50% of what your skin produces from UVB exposure, so it shouldn't cause problems. Are you supplementing with Calcium? Ca supps should be discontinued, as D3 greatly increases Ca absorption.

Nope ... no Ca. I had a bone density test a while back and my bones are off the chart dense. The "t-score" was like 2.7 or 2.8 compared to a distribution of 30 year old women. I do eat dairy but not a lot.

So I'm not sure what's going on there. I get a lot more sun these days and I'm olive skin toned so I just don't think I need it. It was clearly too much for me but there are all sorts of internet folks running around suggesting up to 10X that dose and no concern over toxicity.

well, Evelyn, then you can take a calcium channel blocker to counter the probable hypercalcemia from the vit D :)

yes, the vit D hype follows the time worn pattern: start with a kernel of truth that applies to some people (likely with marked deficiency) and then progress inevitably to EVERYBODY MUST HAVE MORE AND MORE!

So hey, what if we gave seniors at risk of osteoporosis a big, big dose all at once for over the winter? We all *know* there is no toxicity, right? We also solve any problems with compliance with the one big dose. But oops, the result = more fractures, not less.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/303/18/1815.full

Also, when actual trials show zero benefit for heart attack, the cry immediately goes out: you have to give MORE MORE MORE. The list goes on... VLC, fish oil, vit D.

And the way that the advocates declare that D has very little direct toxicity is highly misleading, because the real threat is from resultant hypercalcemia. Kidney stones, anyone want to risk? Artery calcification? It all makes me wonder if Cannell's middle name is Gary :)

A year's supply of any other substance given in one dose would probably kill. It's crazy (& lazy) to administer D3 in this way. It results in serum 25(OH)D falling for most of the year (which probably makes things worse rather than better).

The WHI trials used 400iu/day. Nice bones, shame about the body!

Mum had hypercalcaemia when she was chewing on sweetened chalk tablets. They were stopped (to mum's relief as she hated chewing them and they also made her constipated) when she started taking 5,000iu/day D3.

Many people are deficient in Vitamin K2, resulting in inappropriate calcification. Don't shoot the D3!

there you go, Nigel - you yourself say it's crazy to do that, yet it was approved, funded and carried out, in large part because of the hyped supposition that vit D is always safe.

Similarly, everybody "knows" that with dark skin UV gets blocked and so the need for supplemental D is even greater. Yet "...new evidence from a Wake Forest University School of Medicine study suggests that supplementing vitamin D in those with low levels may have different effects based on patient race and, in black individuals, the supplement could actually do harm."http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100315091259.htm

I don't say that vit D is useless in all cases. I do say that it is vastly hyped as to both efficacy and safety... which is always the mark of the latest fad on diet and supplements.

As for myself, I do have a bottle of 5k IU D3 in the refrigerator, but I wouldn't take it every day for months or years because of safety concerns. I also never did detect any noticeable benefit, even when taking every day for weeks or 25k IU in one day. Also, in August 2010 I spent at least 6 noonish hours in full sun every week; again no noticeable benefit - except a tan :)

I bet there are many hundreds of studies going on right now for almost every malady known to man. I'd also bet that most will fail.

If any individual gets a benefit then that's great and it probably means they had a deficiency. But it doesn't mean that everybody should be taking large, large doses all the time... which is the current hype, just like it was with fish oil, with vitamins, etc. The same was also done with the now fading LC craze.

Oh yeah! I felt really bad for her when she first started talking then as she went on and on and revealed that she's a "down with humans" militant I was more looking around for John Clark to finish the job or at least chuck a pie myself.

Nothing can be always safe *sigh*. People should be tested to see who needs supplements and how much. Supplementation should be done on a daily basis to maintain an even 25(OH)D level.Lose face fat in 2 weeks